J-S56039-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

HUSSAIN KIADEE 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 3186 EDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 28, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-23-CR-0007557-2016

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and NICHOLS, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 08, 2019

Appellant Hussain Kiadee appeals from the judgment of sentence 

imposed following his jury trial convictions for first-degree murder and 

possessing instruments of crime (PIC).

1

 Appellant challenges the legality of 

his arrest, the voluntariness of his confession, and the admissibility of certain 

hearsay statements. We quash the appeal as premature. 

The relevant procedural history of this appeal is as follows. A jury 

convicted Appellant of the aforementioned offenses on August 16, 2018. On 

September 28, 2018, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment 

without parole for the first-degree murder conviction, plus a consecutive term 

of one to two years’ imprisonment for PIC. Privately retained trial counsel 

(trial counsel) timely filed a post-sentence motion on Appellant’s behalf on 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(a) and 907, respectively. 
J-S56039-19

- 2 -

October 2, 2018. That same day, trial counsel also filed a motion for leave to 

withdraw. 

On October 10, 2018, the trial court granted trial counsel’s motion to 

withdraw and directed the public defender to determine whether Appellant 

qualified for post-sentence representation within ten days. If the public 

defender determined that Appellant did not qualify for its legal representation, 

then the trial court directed that Appellant would be responsible for retaining 

private counsel. Further, the trial court dismissed Appellant’s post-sentence 

motion without prejudice, such that Appellant could re-file the motion after 

newly retained counsel entered their appearance. 

Subsequently, privately retained counsel (private counsel) entered their 

appearance on October 23, 2018, and filed a supplemental post-sentence 

motion on October 26, 2018. The public defender, however, was unaware

that Appellant had retained private counsel, and the public defender filed a 

notice of appeal on October 26, 2018. 

The trial court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the 

merits of the supplemental post-sentence motion, and it did not order 

Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. See Trial Ct. Op., 4/1/19, at 

2-3. On April 1, 2019, the trial court filed an opinion asking this Court to 

quash the appeal and remand the matter for further proceedings. 

Preliminarily, we must evaluate whether we have jurisdiction over this 

appeal. “[S]ince the question of appealability implicates the jurisdiction of 

this Court, the issue may be raised by this Court sua sponte.”
J-S56039-19

- 3 -

Commonwealth v. Horn, 172 A.3d 1133, 1135 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation 

and internal alterations omitted). “[T]he final, appealable order for a 

defendant’s direct appeal in a criminal case is the judgment of sentence, not 

the conviction.” Commonwealth v. Claffey, 80 A.3d 780, 782-83 (Pa. 

Super. 2013) (citation omitted). If a defendant files a timely post-sentence

motion, then the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of the entry 

of the order deciding the motion. Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(2)(a). “No direct 

appeal may be taken by a defendant while his or her post-sentence motion is 

pending.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 720 cmt. (citation omitted). 

Instantly, trial counsel filed a timely post-sentence motion, as well as a

separate motion for leave to withdraw on October 2, 2018. The trial court 

permitted trial counsel to withdraw and dismissed Appellant’s post-sentence

motion without prejudice such that Appellant could re-file the motion after 

new counsel entered their appearance. Private counsel subsequently entered 

their appearance and filed a supplemental post-sentence motion. 

Nevertheless, the public defender filed a notice of appeal before the trial court 

could rule on the supplemental post-sentence motion. 

Because the entry of an appropriate order is a prerequisite to this Court’s 

exercise of jurisdiction, we conclude Appellant’s notice of appeal was 

premature. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(2)(a) & cmt.; Claffey, 80 A.3d at 782-

83. Accordingly, we are compelled to quash the appeal. Upon remand, the 

trial court should consider the merits of Appellant’s supplemental postsentence motion. See Commonwealth v. Borrero, 692 A.2d 158, 161 (Pa. 
J-S56039-19

- 4 -

Super. 1997) (quashing the appellant’s premature appeal and explaining that 

the interests of justice required the trial court to consider the post-sentence 

motions on remand, nunc pro tunc). 

Appeal quashed. Case remanded for further proceedings consistent with 

this decision. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/8/19